There were two chapters of my book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, which Skyhorse Publishing ultimately chose not to include in the published version. I am going to offer them here for interested readers. The first is about Eugenics, and the next one, which I will publish here next month, will concern Alternative Energy.
The Eugenics Movement
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
– The Club of Rome
Perhaps the most frightening aspect about those who have misruled us for a very, very long time is their enthusiasm for eugenics. Eugenics is typically considered to be a responsible philosophy, and is associated with the innocuous sounding idea of “population control.” The powerful forces that have supported it for decades, however, seem to have a darker purpose in mind. Over a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the odious sterilization laws that were passed in 16 American states between 1907 and 1917, for the alleged purpose of eliminating mental retardation. Holmes declared, in his opinion, that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein & Charles Murray, p. 5). Much longer ago than that, the noted “open-minded” intellectual Voltaire, espoused the view that “the lower classes should be guided, not educated.” (Ibid, p. 145).
The most brutal, cold-blooded sentiments, however, come from left-wing heroine Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Ms. Sanger stated, in a letter to associate Clarence Gamble dated October 19, 1939, “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” (The End of Racism by Dinesh D’Souza, p. 118). There are photos in existence of Sanger addressing Ku Klux Klan rallies. Sanger also stated, in her American Baby Code, “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Sanger was the lover of fellow eugenicist writer H.G. Wells. She received funding from the Rockefellers and other wealthy patrons. Considering that Planned Parenthood is practically worshiped by women’s advocacy groups, one wonders if they are aware of these monstrously offensive comments.
In August, 1988, Prince Philip, husband of England’s Queen Elizabeth, made the following ghastly statement: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” This was obviously a serious fantasy of Philip’s, as he had mentioned it earlier, in the foreword to the 1986 book If I Were an Animal, where he declared, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” Philip stated his opinion that, “…some animals have to be killed in the interest of maintaining the health and vitality of the species as a whole…” Given his other comments, one can easily surmise what species of “animals” he had in mind.
President Nixon issued a 57 page “Special Message on Population” to the U.S. Congress in May 1969, in which he stressed the familiar themes of population “control,” especially in the “developing nations.” Nixon also pledged U.S. cooperation with United Nations efforts in “responding to world population growth.” The President specifically expressed his appreciation to “…the recent report of the Panel of the United Nations Association, chaired by John D. Rockefeller III.” Nixon closed by proposing the establishment of a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Then Congressman George H.W. Bush was heavily involved with this issue, declaring in a July 21, 1969 speech from the House floor, “…the fantastic rate of population growth …continues with no letup in sight. If this growth rate is not checked-in this next decade-we face a danger that is as defenseless as nuclear war.” The United States government began to address this subject in earnest with National Security Study Memorandum 200, on December 10, 1974. The study reported that it was alarmed by “the rapid reduction in death rates, unmatched by corresponding birth rate reductions.” Of particular concern was the fact that the population in “poor” countries was growing much faster than it was in “rich” countries. This memo, like Nixon’s message, focused most of its attention on the birth rate side of the equation, stressing the promotion of birth control and education in lesser developed countries.
This idea of “population control” is a persistent theme for the rich and powerful. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev once said, “Cut the population by 90 percent and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.” Famed explorer Jacques Cousteau told UNESCO in 1991: “In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.” Well respected leftist Bertrand Russell was shockingly outspoken about this subject. In The Impact of Science on Society, written in 1953, he stated, “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that?” Russell, like Margaret Sanger, is a “leftist” hero, and happened to be one of the first public figures to question the lone assassin theory in the JFK assassination.
The goal here is obvious; to kill large numbers of human beings. Henry Kissinger admitted, in 1978, “U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation.” Aldous Huxley spoke glowingly of “death control,” and his brother Julian Huxley, stated, “…it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Theodore Roosevelt wished that “the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding….The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed.” Media mogul Ted Turner once said, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.” This echoed the conclusion reached by the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1996; that the earth’s population should not exceed five hundred million people, or a decrease of some 93 percent! The eighteenth century President of the Royal Society of Science, Sir Thomas Malthus, actually advocated for a return of the black plague! The United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment echoed this familiar refrain; declaring that “a reasonable estimate” would be a world population of a billion people, while “the more frugal European standard of living” might permit two or three billion.
At an earlier United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, also held in Rio de Janeiro, the notorious Agenda 21 action plan was formulated. The plan called for implementation at international, national, regional and local levels. The concept of “sustainable development,” or the integration of economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve less consumption and the preservation of biodiversity, lies at the heart of Agenda 21. More than 178 nations signed on to Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in 1992, including President George H.W. Bush for the United States. In the words of the planners of Agenda 21, it “…will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”
All of this should sound familiar by now; simply more demands for austerity measures and “sacrifice,” and more eugenics philosophy. Have we ever heard any politicians over the past hundred years speak of blessings to be bestowed upon the people, or of “good times” creating beneficial results for average citizens? Americans haven’t had a politician focus on those issues, since the legendary populist Huey Long. Long, who was predictably assassinated in 1935, left numerous speeches that are still available in the Congressional Record, in which he accused the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt of plotting to kill him.
Back in 1977, future Obama science advisor John P. Holdgren and population “bomb” scaremonger Paul Ehrlich (who once notably said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun”) broached the subject of adding sterilants to the water supply, forced abortions and an Orwellian “Planetary Regime” to run everything, in the textbook Ecoscience. Planned Parenthood’s Vice President, Frederick Jaffe, would echo these sentiments, in a 1969 memo to the Population Council, one of many Rockefeller funded groups. The memo also suggested encouraging homosexuality as another way of decreasing the population. Microsoft plutocrat Bill Gates made the following controversial remarks, before the TED2010 conference, “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” We can only ponder what kind of “vaccines” and “health care” would reduce the number of human beings so dramatically. In April, 2012, the mainstream media in India (but not the U.S., of course) reported some devastating effects from Gates’ beloved vaccines; there were apparently 47,500 new cases of paralysis in India following an increase in the administration of the oral polio vaccine there.
Eugenics was praised by renowned economist John Maynard Keynes. Beloved Christian author C.S. Lewis once wrote, “If we cut up beasts…it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies or capitalists for the same reason.” In a slightly different vein, but still indicative of a poisonous, immoral mindset, Harry Truman was quoted in The New York Times, June 24, 1941, as saying “If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way we let them kill as many as possible.”
We find this same theme in the writings of H.G. Wells, who was also a big promoter of world government. Like so many other renowned figures, he was concerned about getting the “better” stock to breed more, and stopping the “bad” stock from breeding. Another prominent nineteenth century figure, inventor Alexander Graham Bell, became the first director of the Eugenics Record Office. Charles Darwin’s evolutionary credo of “survival of the fittest” seemed to influence many of our leaders, and his own writings indicate he was receptive to basic eugenics theory. Darwin described how the maimed and the poor receive aid, and “our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment,” with the clear inference that this was not a good thing. While he was not as directly appalled by such civilized gestures as Margaret Sanger, who was outraged by the very concept of charity, the message was the same. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, is given credit for inventing the term eugenics. Galton actively promoted the interbreeding of those with “good” stock, and even suggested that there be economic incentives to do so. At its heart, of course, eugenics is nothing more than socially applied Darwinism; the promotion of the “fittest.” Even Barrack Obama was moved to use the disparaging term “Social Darwinism” against the Republicans for their overly draconian social and economic proposals.
I’d always had a favorable opinion of George Bernard Shaw, until I found some of his quotes regarding this topic. In On the Rocks, Shaw spoke out in favor of extermination. In a 1910 lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Shaw said, “A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” In Prefaces, we find even more chilling thoughts from Shaw, “If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent way.” This demented line of thinking has continued unabated for several decades, resulting in recent quotes like this one, from John Davis, editor of Earth First Journal; “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” His Earth First colleague Christopher Manes went him one better, boldly stating, “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
England’s University College Emeritus Professor John Guillebaud, avid supporter of the UK group “Population Matters,” made headlines (at least on conspiracy web sites) in April, 2012. The good Professor was seen in a video standing before a screen that depicted examples of what he termed “natural” population control, such as a machine gun, a hospital bed and a knife dripping with blood. In June of 2010, another distinguished Professor, Cambridge’s Nicholas Boyle, cautioned that only a “global governance run by an enlightened elite” could save mankind from an impending doomsday type of cataclysmic event. Such allusions to “doomsday” scenarios are another favorite obsession of those who misrule us; witness all the movies with this central theme in recent years, and the widespread publicity for the ludicrous “prediction” from the Mayans that the world will end on December 21, 2012.
In April, 2012, the mainstream media widely disseminated the results of a study by MIT and the Club of Rome. The team of scientists predicted a dire immediate future for the world; because of humans’ “incessant need to consume resources like oil, food and fresh water,” they foresee an economic collapse and global devastation like none in recorded history. In response to this, Smithsonian magazine solemnly informed us, “…the world is on track for disaster.” If you look at the charts from the study, freely available online, it seems like they are expecting hundreds of millions of people to die. Talk show host Alex Jones thinks the figures show something like a 90 percent reduction in the earth’s population. Remember, the people who belong to the Club of Rome come from the upper echelons of the business and government worlds; they aren’t video gamers smoking pot and dreaming up creative scenarios.
In May, 2009, The London Times reported that some of the “richest people in the world met in New York to discuss their favorite causes.” The group included Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. They evidently came to a consensus that they should spend their money on efforts to reduce the world’s population. As the Times informed us, “The meeting took place at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel Prize winning biochemist, and president of Rockefeller University,” and that Gates had organized the gathering. In February of 2009, Gates had unveiled a diabolical project to reduce the world’s population by one billion, which would eliminate one out of every nine persons on the planet.
This kind of stuff has always been on Gates’ mind; in a 2003 interview with former LBJ aide turned journalist Bill Moyers, Gates said, “Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.” Clearly, Gates was quite familiar with Thomas Malthus, who was one of the first notables to speculate about the necessity of all those “useless eaters” taking up valuable resources. Gates also grew up in an environment conducive to this line of thought, as his father was once head of Planned Parenthood. And you probably thought Gates was just responsible for running a monopoly that creates inferior, overpriced products and despises the concept of open source or freeware. Gates’ delusion on this subject was best expressed in his comment that open source meant “nobody can ever improve the software.” Of course, in reality, open source does exactly the opposite, making it eminently possible for users to improve the software.
The stark, terrifying nature of the eugenicist mindset was probably best expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a November 17, 2008 speech to Chatham House, which is the British version of the Council on Foreign Relations. “In early times,” Brzezinski declared, “it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control…” Again, what innocent explanation is there for this recurrent theme? Why do our leaders continually talk about eliminating large numbers of human beings?
Jack “Dr. Death” Kevorkian, the retired pathologist with an obsession for “assisting” suicides, had an agenda that must have pleased eugenicists. Euthanasia, after all, is born out of the same twisted philosophy; to end the “misery” of those who don’t have “quality of life.” The Detroit Free Press would estimate that 60 percent of the patients Kevorkian “helped” were not terminally ill, and at least 13 of them had never complained about pain. Kevorkian would have been drummed out of any rational medical industry, but in modern day America, he was the beneficiary of some very positive press. Hollywood would lend its support with the favorable biopic You Don’t Know Jack, with Al Pacino starring as Kevorkian.
Kevorkian was a demented individual. As a medical student, he wore a black arm band and requested to work the night shift, because more patients died then. He tried to photograph patients’ eyes at the moment of death. He was given the nickname “Dr. Death” by his co-workers, and jovially referred to making his “death rounds.” (Los Angeles Times, September 17, 1996).His paintings alone reveal a deeply disturbed man. One of them depicted Santa Claus crushing a baby lying in a fire place. Another, blasphemously titled “Give Us This Day,” featured a baby eating the flesh from a decomposing corpse. He often painted with his own blood. At Pontiac General Hospital, he experimented with transfusing blood from corpses into live humans. He also advocated using death row inmates for medical experimentation.
In a typical Kevorkian case, on July 9, 1996, he gave 39 year old Rebecca Badger a lethal injection, ending years of what was called “excruciating” pain from Multiple Sclerosis. Badger was the 33rd person Kevorkian had “assisted” in this way since 1990. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on Badger, county medical examiner L.J. Dragovic, created quite a bit of controversy when he stated in an interview: “She doesn’t have any evidence of medical disease. I can show you every slice from her brain and spinal cord, and she doesn’t have a bit of MS. She looked robust, fairly healthy. Everything else is in order. Except she’s dead.”
Kevorkian had, in reality, “assisted” a woman with a history of psychiatric problems who was plagued by severe pelvic pain, which doctors could not attribute to any physical cause. Johanna Meyer-Mitchell, a California family practitioner who treated Badger for almost 11 years, was startled over her assisted suicide. “There never was any objective evidence as to why she was in as much pain as she said she was in…If I had known this is what she was planning or thinking of, I would have tried to intervene to get her psychiatric help.” Kevorkian’s lawyer Geoffrey Fieger released some of Badger’s medical records in an effort to substantiate his charges that the autopsy results were false. The records he released, however, which consisted of case summaries by her two primary physicians and interviews with other experts, were hardly irrefutable proof she had MS. She seemed to be a typical case where doctors provided a diagnosis of “possible MS” because nothing else explained the patient’s symptoms. Meyer-Mitchell diagnosed Badger as suffering from depression and she also revealed that Badger had been sexually abused as a child and had “a history of chemical dependency and alcoholism.” Even the doctor who diagnosed Badger with possible MS in 1988, Michael Stein, was shocked to hear she’d been a “beneficiary” of Dr. Kevorkian’s work. “The next thing I hear (on the radio eight days later) is that she’s an assisted suicide.” Stein said. “I said, ‘What?’…I presumed they would talk her out of it. I was dead wrong.”
Attorney Fieger, known for his aggressive style, lambasted longtime foe, medical examiner Dragovic. “Dr. Dragovic is a liar. I will put up a million dollars that Rebecca Badger had severe and crippling MS.” “Could he double the stakes?” An amused Dragovic replied. “She did not have MS, and that’s the end of it.” Two independent experts contacted by the Post agreed with Dragovic’s findings. “It’s inconceivable to me that the autopsy wouldn’t pick it up. I would be very skeptical as to whether this woman had MS,” stated Aaron Miller of New York, chairman of the professional education committee for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. (The Washington Post, July 29, 1996, p. A1 & A12).
The subtle messages emanating from the media over the years about “quality of life” and responsible persons not wanting to be a “burden” or even a “vegetable” had clearly hit home with much of the American public by the 1990s. The Christian View of the News published the results of a survey taken from intensive care nurses, which revealed that one in five admitted to having performed euthanasia, assisting suicide or withholding life-sustaining treatment. Another 40 percent claimed they wanted to “help” patients in this way, but hadn’t for fear of being caught. An incredible 58 out of 852 nurses surveyed admitted to taking the life of a patient who had never requested them to. Between 1994 and 1997, Jack Kevorkian was tried four times for assisting suicides, but he was acquitted three times and the fourth ended in a mistrial. The public was so supportive of this despicable, sick man that Richard Thompson lost a primary challenge largely because he’d prosecuted him. Eventually, Kevorkian was convicted and sent to prison, but an astonishing number of people continue to consider this genuine serial killer to be some kind of hero.
In 2000 Kevorkian was given the prestigious Gleitsman Foundation Citizen Activists Award, awarded to those “who have challenged social injustice in the United States.” Among the panel of judges who honored this unacknowledged serial killer were actor Ted Danson, Children’s advocate Marian Wright Edelman, Mothers Against Drunk Driving founder Candace Lightner, feminist (and onetime CIA asset) Gloria Steinem and Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that pressures the mainstream media into censoring any criticism of Israel by using the “anti-semitic” sledgehammer) honcho Morris Dees, Jr. Among Kevorkian’s self-proclaimed 130 victims were an overweight diabetic, several cases of people with the decidedly non-terminal multiple sclerosis, and others who were simply depressed, had mental problems or suffered from the likes of chronic fatigue syndrome. Like all serial killers, Kevorkian loved his work; he never charged for his “services.” The notoriety and positive public image of someone like Jack Kevorkian is clear proof that conspirators run the United States of America now. In a sane society, someone as obviously disturbed as “Dr. Death” would have been sent somewhere to get the help he so desperately needed.
In March, 2012, a group of Oxford University professors published a paper titled After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? These professors were labeled “experts” in medical ethics. Ethics. Think about this; it is apparently now “ethical,” to the elites who misrule us, for human infants to be murdered after birth. These professors argued that babies don’t possess “a moral right to life.” Their odious research was actually published in The Journal of Medical Ethics. They were merely echoing the sentiments of Dr. Peter Singer, of Princeton University, who has for years advocated that the killing of a human baby ought to be permitted, up to the point where the child develops the ability to communicate and “anticipate the future.” (The Christian Post, March 7, 2012). While “politically incorrect” speakers and teachers are routinely banned and dismissed from American universities, here we have a professor advocating the most heinous kind of proposal, yet he is allowed to maintain his position at one of the most prestigious colleges in the country.
Author G.K. Chesterton understood this issue better than most. In his Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State, Chesterton wrote: “The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science…And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statues, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the government will really help it to persecute its heretics…I am not frightened of the word ‘persecution’…It is a term of legal fact. If it means the imposition by the police of a widely disputed theory, incapable of final proof—then our priests are not now persecuting, but our doctors are.”
Exactly what kind of leaders do we have? What responsible adults speak so continuously about eradicating huge numbers of people? The concept of gradualism is quite apparent here; there’s a logical progression from nursing homes to abortion to “pulling the plug” to euthanasia to full fledged eugenics. Noble sounding concerns for “population control” are inexorably tied to barbaric notions of sterilizing humans and “reducing” population by “any means necessary.” There is a strong desire among many of these supposedly “liberal” minds to encourage the “proper” people to breed, and to put an end to “undesirable” genes procreating. Darwinian philosophy can evolve (pun intended) into dire, science fiction scenarios where the aged, infirmed and disabled are eliminated because they are “useless.” Much of the public has been dumbed down enough to accept such murderous concepts as compassionate. A good portion of the environmental movement is linked to eugenics thought, whereby the decent ideals of preserving natural resources and keeping the air and water clean become melded to a general globalist agenda of “carbon taxes” and decreased population. When a career establishment hack like Al Gore is considered the leader of a movement, you can be certain it’s not a good one.